There are some cases involving plausible deniability where game theory tells you should beat the person until dead even if they give up their keys, since there might be more.
I mean, I’d definitely do it to SBF if his crap wasn’t cleaned out already. Though admittedly I’d largely keep going just because this world DESPERATELY needs fewer SBF types in it…
Full disk (/partition) encryption means you don’t know what files there are until you decrypt. Additionally for that sort of encryption scenario you fill the partition with random data first so you can’t tell files from empty space (unless the attacker can watch the drive over time).
If you set it up correctly, this is essentially what it does. You have a disc that is, say, 1tb. It’s encrypted, so without a key, it’s just a bunch of random noise. 2 keys decrypt different vaults, but they each have access to the full space. The files with the proper key get revealed, but the rest just looks like noise still, no way to tell if it’s empty space or if it’s a bunch of files.
This does have an interesting effect. Since both drives share the same space, you can overfill one, and it’ll start overwriting data from the second. Say you have a 1tb drive, and 2 vaults with 400gb spent. If you then go try to write like, 300gb of data to one vault, it’ll allow you to do so, by overwriting 200gb of what the drive thinks is empty space, but is actually encrypted by another key.
Game theory would lead you, as the tortured, to realize that they’re just going to beat you until death to extract any keys you may or may not have, so the proper answer is to give them 1 and no more. You’re dead anyway, may as well actually protect what you thought was worth protecting. Giving 1 key that opens a dummy vault may get the torturers to stop at you, thinking this lead is a dead one.
Probably best to avoid systems with known deniable encryption methods, and keep your dummy data there. Then hide your secrets e.g. in deleted space on a drive, in the cloud, or a well-hidden micro-sd card. All have risks, maybe it’s best of all to not keep your secrets with you, and make sure they can’t be associated with you.
The private key, or a symmetric key would break the algorithm. It’s kind of the point that a person having those can read it. The public key is the one you can show people.
The purpose is to access the data. This is a bypass attack, rather than a mathematical one. It helps to remember that encryption is rarely used in the abstract. It is used as part of real world security.
There are actually methods to defend against it. The most effective is a “duress key”. This is the key you give up under duress. It will decrypt an alternative version of the file/drive, as well as potentially triggering additional safeguards. The key point is the attacker won’t know if they have the real files, and there is nothing of interest, or dummy ones.
An encryption scheme is only as strong as its weakest link. In academic terms, only the algorithm really matters. In the real world however, implementation is as important.
The human element is an element that has to be considered. Rubber hose cryptanalysis is a tongue and cheek way of acknowledging that. It also matters since some algorithms are better at assisting here. E.g. 1 time key Vs passwords.
Simultaneously the worst and funniest feeling, is searching for a solution and most of the responses/results are to go search for it. If your answer is that searching for an answer is an easy and quick solution, you contribute to disproving yourself.
Honestly, yeah sometimes. It’s my emotional reflex to frustration that was programmed into me by my parents and I haven’t done enough cognitive behavioral therapy to undo it.
As someone who discovered my Type 1 ASD at 40, the gods know that I have a lot more work to do on my self-awareness and abrasiveness.
Not saying you should adopt this, but sometimes I read aloud what I type and imagine myself replying to a student in real life in the way of and with the tone that people sometimes have on StackOverflow.
My gut reaction at that point, usually, is to rewrite a response or post completely with a more generous dose of humility and compassion.
I don’t always get it right, but when I remember to do that and read replies, I like myself a little bit more.
I’ve been thinking about this a bit more, and I realized that I talk to other people the way I talk to myself. This probably wouldn’t be a problem if I weren’t so critical of myself.
I think I need to not only put in the effort to reread the things I write when communicating with others, but also to just be kinder to myself in my internal monologue.
I spend too much time being frustrated inside my own head, and that makes it easy to use that same tone when I’m interacting with other people.
Thanks for sharing your advice. I think verbalizing my thoughts the way you suggested will be really helpful.
It’s not about feeling better. It’s about getting the other person to understand that Google exists and that they can use it, too. Too many people refuse to put in any effort of their own and go ask someone instead.
IMHO in that situation answering isn’t even the right thing to do, since it encourages that behaviour and prevents the asker from learning to find out stuff for themselves. Something about fishing for hungry people or so…
When someone is genuinely stuck, doing research themselves allows the answerer not to go down the same dead ends, which saves time for both.
If it’s on Stack Exchange, you can help us keep the community decent by assuming good faith and being patient with newcomers. Yes, it’s frustrating. And yeah, sometimes, it’s basically impossible to avoid sarcasm and scorn, just like how HN sometimes needs to be sneered at, but we can still strive for a maximum of civility.
If all else fails, just remember: you’re not on Philosophy SE or any of the religious communities, it’s just a computer question, and it can be answered without devolving into an opinion war. Pat yourself on the back for being a “schmott guy!” and write a polite answer that hopefully the newbies will grok. Be respectful of plural perspectives; it’s a feature that a question may have multiple well-liked answers.
Yeah, this list of sites is making me think of asking for a book by loudly asking a library, a series of coffeeshops, a chud microbrewery, and an 11-year-old bully. Try quietly reading in the library first, I guess.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.